I don't know that much about O'Donnell, but I was dismayed by efforts to portray her as unstable because she went to court after she was subjected to what she thought was sex discrimination. And I don't know much about Castle, but why was a 70-year-old man running for a first term in the Senate? That struck me as self-centered vanity at odds with the interests of his party — which was particularly suspect given his RINO record. So — good for O'Donnell.

The GOP was running harsh robo calls against her claiming where her previous campaign staff said she was swindling money.

And, that was a day ago.

Now, she's good to go.

BTW, this morning Glenn Beck endorsed her. Although he referred to her as "what's her name." And, he said he would vote for her, but he would be satisfied if she lost (he compared this to his being chosen as a Mormon bishop; it's something he would support, but he didn't want it to happen).

O'Donnell's victory is another example of a younger white woman being acceptable with voters while an older white man is not acceptable with voters. She now has a chance of taking heat off of Palin to whom the media has lost in their last 20 hit-piece PR battles. O'Donnell may not have Palin's counter punching skills.I am sure that Journolist is up tonight cooking up a creative slander mega-attack on O'Donnel. We shall see.

Whatever one may think of the respective candidates qualifications and chances for victory in November, the Delaware Republican establishment's behavior toward O'Donnell was totally reprehensible and undesirable as a precedent. So, it's a good thing that they got slapped down.

- want to give a bit of balance to Ms. O'Donnell being "unstable". This all came about because she said she was followed and her signs were vandalized.

Well I live in Sussex County, Delaware. Every election season, candidates complain about their signs being stolen or destroyed.

Also, last year I organized a Tea Party in the County Seat. We had DHS tell us we needed their permission. We told them that we had local and police permission. One of our organizers, who is retired from the Air Force and an ex-liason to the White House, felt he was being followed. The day of our Tea Party 6 men in suits were surrounding the circle. I thought they were plain clothes policeman but the Chief of Police said they had nothing to do with his department. The day after our event, a local reporter called to say there was a woman walking through the crowd taking head shots of every participant.

It does seem odd that Althouse is supporting someone she knows nothing about. It also seems given her current commentary if it was a Democrat who had sued for 7 million dollars for feeling sad, lied about her degree, lied about myriad other things, Althouse would be singing a different tune. It's sad that she's becoming so predictable and uninteresting.

The article in the Weekly Standard about how she's unstable seems like a reach to me.

They have essentially *one* data point... her sex discrimination suit. She asked for too much money? Well, so? And I can't get excited about the Princeton thing... she was planning ahead and making preparations and arrangements to continue work while taking classes... she was *done* with her undergrad work but for tying up a couple of things (and I'm sorry... owing money for school for years afterward is not unusual)... she was getting it together. And then they hired a male clerical assistant right out of school, had her train him, and demoted her.

Without being there I don't see any reason to assume that the workplace wasn't hostile and the flip from thinking you're doing great to having everything blow up *is* distressing, no matter in what context it happens.

If she filed a sex discrimination suit at every place she worked... I might be impressed.

One battle at a time the Tea Party is winning the war for control of the Republican Party. This means the Dems will get a taste of their own brand of hardball after November. No more crossing the aisle shit, thank you very much.

traditionalguy said... O'Donnell's victory is another example of a younger white woman being acceptable with voters while an older white man is not acceptable with voters. She now has a chance of taking heat off of Palin=====================Actually, if Palin-endorsed unwinnable extremists cost the Republicans the opportunity to retake the Senate, I expect that will hound her and her "Acolytes of the Goddess" types.

I suppose the defense will be that Palin and the wingnuts fought to keep Sen Harry Reid in charge - because endorsing moderate Republicans for helping form a Senate majority dominated by conservatives was ideologically unacceptable.

God, Ann, what you wrote is digustingly sexist. The female chauvinism is really objectionable and offensive. If anyone wrote this with the sexes reversed, you would be pissed as hell.

Mike Castle is a very well-established Delaware politician. He would easily win in November.

Christine O'Donnell is a paranoid sociopath who pursued a sex discrimination case with no merit and which she quickly dropped when it was apparent that it was not going to shake down the organization she was suing. She has a shaky past in about 15 different directions.

O'Donnell is going to get destroyed in the November election because she is an unstable extremist. This may be the seat that will now keep the Democrats in control of the Senate.

I view him as one of the many long-serving Congress critters who bankrupted the country and fiddled while the Congress and its Community Reinvestment Act played a big role in the housing bubble. Now Castle will take a fat pension, become a lobbyist and live the good life. Well the Tea Party type candidates are all about putting a stop to that well-worn career path. Because it is our money they are spending.

My view on this is that it's going to be hard for Tea Party Republicans to win in generally liberal states, just as it's hard for left-liberals to win in generally conservative states. Thus, you see conservative Democrats winning in Alabama and liberal Republicans winning in Maine.

I hope I am wrong. Tea Party activists represent fiscal sanity at the end of the day -- the same impetus that drove the Ross Perot phenomenon and resulted in a brief period of federal surplus and -- not shockingly -- stunning economic growth from 1994 to 2001.

Senator is obviously a very, very important job. It's disturbing that the tea party fringe were able to elect someone who doesn't appear qualified for the job.

Now, since this is Althouse's site and since she has a few 'partier idiots who comment here, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There's a place for those who are outside the system to get involved in politics. Despite what the pea brains in the 'parties try to say, I'm not supporting a Harvardocracy. I'm just asking for qualifications, as good Americans should. The 'partiers don't care about qualifications.

2. I'm not in any way a True Conservative. See, I do things like oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty, one that Reid is going to try to ram through. Teaparty True Conservatives - the only people in the U.S. who are real patriots - ignore such anti-American bills because Dick Armey doesn't like it.

"Closed primaries tend to bring out extreme members who don't appeal to independent voters."

Open primaries are moronic. They open up the process to dirty tricks and spoilers from the other party. If people are playing dirty tricks it should be "inside" dirty tricks and then they get what they deserve.

Instead of voting for... McCain in open primaries, maybe the Democrat smarty pants should have voted for Hillary, huh?

You want all the Republicans voting for the crazy upstart Dem in the primary because he could never win?

If crazy Democrats vote for the crazy-can't-win Dem candidate, then that's what they get. If the crazy Republicans vote for the crazy-can't-win Rep candidate, then that's what they get.

I'd think it's pretty obvious that in an *open* primary that still happens only a whole lot *more*, not less.

They don't have one data point: Have you heard her about the people hiding in her bushes and how she has to have her grounds searched before she goes in or out of her house? How about her barely avoiding foreclosure? Or her not paying her college's tuition bill until this year, so that her college sued her? Or her not finishing her college degree until this September (I wonder what her resumes have said about her having a college degree.)

What is happening here is so wrong that it discredits anyone who defends her without having a lot of the facts straight--like Althouse.

I'm NOT IMPRESSED with her crazy-creds. I suppose that a person could read the "proof" and decide it was crazy, sort of like it's crazy to hop on a plane to Alaska when your water broke. OR a person could think if there is any way to interpret those things as the normal sorts of things that people do... She owed on school... OMG... never happens. So the school was holding her diploma hostage. If she got a job she might LIKE ANYONE ELSE let that slide as life takes over. She was considering taking classes and preparing to take classes and had arranged with her employer to take classes to get her Master's degree. OMG! People never do that! No one ever has transition problems during a move or refinance or when they're trying to sell a house. NOT EVER!

And political dirty tricks? Do you KNOW she doesn't have reason to check her bushes? No one is out there trying to "get" her?

Here in New Mexico a few years ago someone "got" a Republican campaign manager with a tire iron. Random violence. I don't think the police even investigated.

The art of politics is the management of between-group differences and within-group differences. Some parts of the northeastern establishment GOP were just too comfortable in their jobs and lost track of the goals of the GOP, thus stretching the within-group difference to its limit. It had a limit and that was found in MD this evening.

Well said-I agree 1,000%. People should have to either join a party so they can have a say in its choices and candidates or keep out and STFU. Open primaries are like not keeping score in little league. Grow up and pick a side or stay unaffiliated which means you can't vote in party primaries.

You did say they only had a single data point, when in fact there are oodles of data points.

And good luck with making so many excuses and positing so many extenuating circumstances for her.

When The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, John McCormack, and Jennifer Rubin at Commentary are all totally aghast at her, you really ought to question your desperation to think she is all right.

This is a very serious mistake by Palin and DeMint. She is going to get creamed inthe general whereas Castle would have won in a walk. Palin and DeMint may just have cost Republicans control of the Senate.

You are spliting hairs. Many of those "private" mortgages would not have been made without govt guarantees.They were issued using guidelines MANDATED by the CRA and then the risky mortgages were promptly sold to Fannie/ Fweddie/ FHA etc.

Rialby, it is a good thing for America. The McCain wing of the party is useless. It is the corrupt part of the party that is really interested in big government and power. They need to be purged.

If the Republican party does not show that it can support her and like minded citizen candidates, and continues to support 40 year professional politicians, then they will become as pertinent as the Bull Moose party.

[I just posted this and it appeared. So, either Althouse doesn't want you to see it or it was moderated. This time I'll check whether it actually posts so we know whether Althouse is deleting comments or not.]

Senator is obviously a very, very important job. It's disturbing that the tea party fringe were able to elect someone who doesn't appear qualified for the job.

Now, since this is Althouse's site and since she has a few 'partier idiots who comment here, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There's a place for those who are outside the system to get involved in politics. Despite what the pea brains in the 'parties try to say, I'm not supporting a Harvardocracy. I'm just asking for qualifications, as good Americans should. The 'partiers don't care about qualifications.

2. I'm not in any way a True Conservative. See, I do things like oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty, one that Reid is going to try to ram through. Teaparty True Conservatives - the only people in the U.S. who are real patriots - ignore such anti-American bills because Dick Armey doesn't like it.

See... people are getting inured to the hyperbole of "so and so LIED about such and such" and then when you look at it, oh, then it's only "she implied"... never said so, just "implied" and you think... did she? Or did someone else just summarize or short-cut, and not her at all?

Some people are crazy, unstable, people. But if they are, there should be better stuff to dig up. Lots better than "she asked for too much money she never got" or "she favors abstinence" or "she thinks that porn is bad" or "she had trouble once paying her mortgage, but she got it worked out before final default."

You're totally wrong about Castle. Castle is no Spector, just as O'Donnell is no Angle.

See Jay Cost's piece at Weekly Standard, linked at REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM, that explains who Castle is and why he is not a RINO. Cost, Kristol, McCormack, Jennifer Rubin--all of these people have impeccable conservative credentials.

O'Donnell is just a stupid unforced error that is going to be very costly.

The extent to which she will be an embarrassment and will alienate independents nationally--not just in Delaware--has not even begun to be explored.

If this is what the Tea Party does, they will become completely ineffectual where it counts--in the government itself.

Senator is obviously a very, very important job. It's disturbing that the tea party fringe (extensive coverage: 24ahead.com/s/tea-parties ) were able to elect someone who doesn't appear qualified for the job and who probably won't win the general.

Now, since this is Althouse's site and since she has a few 'partier idiots who comment here, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There's a place for those who are outside the system to get involved in politics. Despite what the pea brains in the 'parties try to say, I'm not supporting a Harvardocracy. I'm just asking for qualifications, as good Americans should. The 'partiers don't care about qualifications.

2. I'm not in any way a True Conservative. See, I do things like oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty, one that Reid is going to try to ram through. Teaparty True Conservatives - the only people in the U.S. who are real patriots (or at least who have the tricorner hats) - ignore such anti-American bills because, well, Dick Armey is the one who ultimately cuts the checks and he supports illegal immigration.

The same GOP elitists said that Scott Brown couldn't win. More recently they said that Joe Miller couldn't win. Now the same is being said about O'Donnell and Lamontagne (the latter from New Hampshire).

If you're a Leftist then that's fine but any Republican who will now go out of their way to talk down and defeat the democratically chosen GOP candidates should really do the honorable thing and find the party that fits their personal political agenda.

If the old white geezer of the Delaware GOP cannot beat an unstable person with a history of financial stress, and after all she thinks like a WOMAN too, than how was he presumed to beat a well financed Democrat, unless the Democrats have always seen his vote as theirs anyway.

As for Althouse supporting someone she doesn't know anything about... all she said was that she was basing her opinion on how O'Donnell was treated and the behavior of the Republican party in Delaware. So, it was more about who deserved to *lose*.

Oh, and "the Party Establishment really really hates me", isn't the worst that a candidate can run on these days.

Prior to becoming County Executive, Chris served four years as New Castle County Council President and worked for eight years as legal counsel for W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., the makers of GORE-TEX fabrics and many other high-tech materials. He was responsible for Gore's ethics training program, e-commerce legal work and federal government relations.

Chris is a graduate of Amherst College with a B.A. in Chemistry and Political Science, and earned his law degree from Yale Law School and a Master's in Ethics from Yale Divinity School. Chris also studied abroad at the University of Nairobi in Kenya.

Also, since I figure we've got the politics we've got on account of the fact that everyone for so long has been voting for the person they think can win instead of the person who represents them best...

I'm profoundly unimpressed with those who want the Republicans to regain power above all other considerations.

"I'm a better Democrat than the Democratic candidate." Yay.

And so we're left with no choices at all. Everyone is almost the same and more of the same. Nothing to chose.

As has been stated... if O'Donnell is so horrific, then the idiot Delaware Republican party should have found a candidate who was better.

Lem if Limbaugh-oops t was Mark Levin did that to Castle he should be sued for defamation.

Here is Powerline on the matter:

The madness continues, as activists who support Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary have stepped up their attacks on Mike Castle by alleging that he voted to impeach President Bush. That will come as a surprise to those who wonder how they missed such a vote, but Dan Riehl assures us that it is true. Not only that, he explicitly ties this claim to radio talk show host Mark Levin's attack on us; he titles his post "Paging Powerline." He says that he would "like to hear from Powerline as to why they are supporting someone who signed on to such 'moonbattery' and did such damage to our country."

First of all, Riehl's claim--which he says may have originated with Mark Levin--is absurd on its face. The House of Representatives never voted on whether to impeach President Bush. The vote that Riehl and other anti-Castle pundits refer to is this one, to refer Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. That motion passed; obviously it was not an impeachment resolution, or we would have had an impeachment trial. Castle was one of 24 Republicans who voted for the referral resolution, along with conservative stalwarts like Peter King, Kevin Brady, Ralph Hall, and others.

Was a vote for this referral resolution tantamount to a vote to impeach President Bush, as Dan Riehl and, reportedly, Mark Levin claim? That certainly isn't what left-wingers thought. Here is how the web site Impeach Bush covered the vote:

Q: Is it a good thing that it was referred to the Judiciary Committee?

A: Yes. The mainstream media is saying the resolution was "scuttled". But referral to Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution. Now HRes 1258 can be fine tuned while we build support in Congress and with the public. But there is a danger. If we cannot convince John Conyers to schedule time for HRes 1258 then it could die.

Which, of course, is what happened. So Congressman Castle voted, as the media reported at the time, to "scuttle" Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Here is more from Impeach Bush:

Q. How did our Reps vote and what does it mean?

A: Kucinich moved that HRes 1258 be referred to the Judiciary Committee. All of the Democrats and 24 Republicans voted "Aye" (yes). A yes vote could mean that the Representative supported the resolution and wanted to see it developed further in the Judiciary. Or it could mean they wanted to send it to committee for a slow death.

It is a reasonable supposition that the Republicans who voted for HRes 1258 did so in order that Kucinich's impeachment drive could die "a slow death."

Is that what Congressman Castle had in mind? Yes, it was. This left-wing web site sounded out Delaware's representatives on their position on impeachment. The site's author was bitterly disappointed by Congressman Castle's response:

First I called Senator Carper and was told that they would not support Impeachment at this time. I also called Congressman Castle's office and was completely shocked. I was told that the Congressman would not support Impeachment because they believed there weren't any crimes committed by the Bush administration.

There you have it. Mike Castle never voted to impeach President Bush; no such vote ever occurred on the floor of the House. He did vote to commit goofball Congressman Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where it died, as intended, a slow death. And Castle's office said that it opposed impeachment because "they believed there weren't any crimes committed by the Bush administration."

The Kraut Hammer sure hates upstart women playing in his game. The old ways of analyzing politics are not working. "The times they are a changing" declared Minnesota Bob, and then he sung something about getting out of the way if you cannot understand. The war to get Obama and the Marxist Democrats out of power before they finish getting the USA out of power is what they cannot seem to understand. If that war is not won now, then there will not be any second chance for our no show RINOs and RAMF male GOP Presidential candidates to risk getting into this fight. The call is to "come up on this hill and fight" and if only women answer that call, then that is who will get the glory.

How is telling the truth that a candidate like O'donnell lied about the damages she suffered in a lawsuit unfair. Mike Castle was a dedicated public servant who would have led the charge to repeal Obamacare. O'Donnell is a professional campaign loser who lives off her campaign funds and can not win in November. This victory might be good for her, but it is bad for the GOP and bad for the country since it gives Obama another democrat vote in the Senate.

Lem if Limbaugh-oops t was Mark Levin did that to Castle he should be sued for defamation.

Here is Powerline on the matter:

The madness continues, as activists who support Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary have stepped up their attacks on Mike Castle by alleging that he voted to impeach President Bush. That will come as a surprise to those who wonder how they missed such a vote, but Dan Riehl assures us that it is true. Not only that, he explicitly ties this claim to radio talk show host Mark Levin's attack on us; he titles his post "Paging Powerline." He says that he would "like to hear from Powerline as to why they are supporting someone who signed on to such 'moonbattery' and did such damage to our country."

First of all, Riehl's claim--which he says may have originated with Mark Levin--is absurd on its face. The House of Representatives never voted on whether to impeach President Bush. The vote that Riehl and other anti-Castle pundits refer to is this one, to refer Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. That motion passed; obviously it was not an impeachment resolution, or we would have had an impeachment trial. Castle was one of 24 Republicans who voted for the referral resolution, along with conservative stalwarts like Peter King, Kevin Brady, Ralph Hall, and others.

Was a vote for this referral resolution tantamount to a vote to impeach President Bush, as Dan Riehl and, reportedly, Mark Levin claim? That certainly isn't what left-wingers thought. Here is how the web site Impeach Bush covered the vote:

Q: Is it a good thing that it was referred to the Judiciary Committee?

A: Yes. The mainstream media is saying the resolution was "scuttled". But referral to Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution. Now HRes 1258 can be fine tuned while we build support in Congress and with the public. But there is a danger. If we cannot convince John Conyers to schedule time for HRes 1258 then it could die.

Which, of course, is what happened. So Congressman Castle voted, as the media reported at the time, to "scuttle" Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Here is more from Impeach Bush:

Q. How did our Reps vote and what does it mean?

A: Kucinich moved that HRes 1258 be referred to the Judiciary Committee. All of the Democrats and 24 Republicans voted "Aye" (yes). A yes vote could mean that the Representative supported the resolution and wanted to see it developed further in the Judiciary. Or it could mean they wanted to send it to committee for a slow death.

It is a reasonable supposition that the Republicans who voted for HRes 1258 did so in order that Kucinich's impeachment drive could die "a slow death."

Is that what Congressman Castle had in mind? Yes, it was. This left-wing web site sounded out Delaware's representatives on their position on impeachment. The site's author was bitterly disappointed by Congressman Castle's response:

First I called Senator Carper and was told that they would not support Impeachment at this time. I also called Congressman Castle's office and was completely shocked. I was told that the Congressman would not support Impeachment because they believed there weren't any crimes committed by the Bush administration.

There you have it. Mike Castle never voted to impeach President Bush; no such vote ever occurred on the floor of the House. He did vote to commit goofball Congressman Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where it died, as intended, a slow death. And Castle's office said that it opposed impeachment because "they believed there weren't any crimes committed by the Bush administration."

"It is a reasonable supposition that the Republicans who voted for HRes 1258 did so in order that Kucinich's impeachment drive could die "a slow death.""

So... every single one of the Democrats in Congress voted yes for HRes 1258 because they *also* were against impeaching Bush and wanted the bill to die?

In all likelihood, everyone wanted it to die, even all the Democrats. They probably just wanted to send a message to their crazy-lunatic voter base, to satisfy them with a gesture.

It does send a message.

And if, BTW, Castle expects to get off from the charge of "voting to impeach Bush" just because he voted for an initial step in the process, then O'Donnell gets off from the charge of "claimed to go to Princeton" when she had only taken preliminary steps to arrange it.

Castle has been in Congress for 24 years! During which time IMHO the members of both parties have bankrupted the country and took their eyes off the ball while they wrangled about what ginormous critical issues? Stem cell research, DADT, gay marriage, global warming, cap & tax, giving everyone a house even when their credit sucked and they did not have a job, ignoring illegal immigration, throwing more and more money at schools, prosecuting two wars badly, absolving everyone of any blame for 911 and laying the plans to absolve everyone of any blame for the bank meltdown. Did I miss anything? Can they do anything effectively and efficiently?

I'm bummed that the choice for Governor in Wisconsin is between two Milwaukee politicians. It's sort of like being given the choice between two Senators for President. I don't really like Tom Barrett, even though my brother-in-law knows him and likes him. Scott Walker strikes me as a dim bulb. What to do?

Read the link. The data proves that it was the private non-GSE, non-CRA subprime loans that sunk the market. That Wall Street junk was diced and sliced and sold around the world. This was a totally different track than the GSE stuff. Lenders sold their, relatively, good stuff directly to the GSEs and they used subsidiaries to isolate (from regulator scrutiny) and dump (on the non-GSE markets, who knew a lot less about what they were buying than the GSEs did) the more sketchy stuff.

Would it kill you to acknowledge the reality that Wall Street, non-CRA institutions led us down the road of destruction, and the GSEs followed Wall Street because they were losing market share to the Wall Street products, as the data proves?

After years of their delusion based devotion to W, I'm surprised to see so many cons eagerly ignore reality as they're again motivated by the false narratives and the BS of the professional conservatives.

How did W put it:"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Reports are that Palin just did a RINOplasty on Delaware. And that was done by a "Quitter" who left Alaska. Alaskan quitters are now formidable political forces in Delaware. The Times They are A Changing, big time.

Fen said... "Better question - if she loses and the Republicans do not win the Senate, is that a good thing for Republicans in 2012 or a bad thing?"

A good thing. Because if the GOP takes the Senate with RINOs, they will compromise conservative principles and make the GOP an accomplice to Obamicide.=========================And following that with an unelectable candidate in 2012 like Palin or Pastor Huckleberry would send an even stronger message that conservative zealots prefer 4 more years of Obama rather than "compromise their hardcore conservative values".Think of the great win 4 more years of Obama, to go with 6 more years of Harry Reid in charge means!!And don't you owe it to Palin to nominate her, Fen? After her "big wins" getting Angle and O'Donnell nominated and helping preserve two liberal Democrat Senate seats?

Doesn't matter if O'Donnell loses the general election, does it? Delaware Republicans have sent a strong message to TPTB, and that is a good thing. The patricians in the Senate are now on notice that the republic demands fiscal accountability.

All we need is Congress and enough Senators to keep the Senate from being filibuster proof.

I often enjoy and agree with your comments. But you are acting in a way that actually furthers the very trends you detest.

Tonight was an extremely good night for liberals and Democrats in Delaware and across the nation. Republicans tonight chose to elect a Democrat instead of a Republican to the US Senate from Delaware in November.

Instead of a moderate Republican who was opposed to ObamaCare, we will have another Democrat to vote for Obama's agenda.

This loss of this seat will almost certainly make it impossible to win Republican control of the Senate.

Which part of this don't you understand?

And first--before you answer again--read Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com on why Mike Castle is not a RINO.

-The last time it voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 1988.

-The last time it voted for a Republican senator was 1994.

-The last time the GOP held the state house was 1972.

-The last time the GOP held the state senate was 1972.

-The last time a Republican won the governor's mansion was 1988. That Republican’s name is Mike Castle.

-Between 1988 and 2000, the Democrats held on average a party registration advantage that ranged between 5 and 9 points. In 2006, the Democratic advantage hit 11 points. In 2008 it hit 12 points. This year, it reached 17 points.

-In 2008, one out of four self-identified Delaware conservatives voted for Barack Obama.

Lucid...What if the journolist does coordinate a high tech lynching of O'Donnel and no one buys it anymore? The fear of media false attacks quoted as gospel truth forever are over now. That fear paralyzed McCains campaign. Palin has showed how to Face Book and Blog it into defeat. The internet commentary blogs are inside the slander media's OODA (in the language of a Ga Tech graduate named John Boyd).

"Doesn't matter if O'Donnell loses the general election, does it? Delaware Republicans have sent a strong message to TPTB, and that is a good thing."

So if she loses will the DE Rs have been sent a message from the DE electorate that they screwed up? Or, is it that whatever happens the message is always interpreted to mean that hard core cons are always right, and everybody else is always wrong? I can see why some Rs are never guided by reality or data; their conclusions are predetermined no matter what happens.

And what do you suppose O'Donnell's resumes before this September (when she actually took the last course and got her degree--after finally paying her tuition) have said about her having a college degree?

And how many hours do you think it will be before this and other similar issues having to do with dishonesty and sociopathy begin to circulate about O'Donnell?

1JPB:My last comment- here in Philly, the Dems always get together and vote for the anointed mayoral candidate and what does it get the city? A string of crappy lousy mayors and a city that is in a tailspin.

Conservatives would rather be out of power than be associated with winners who are crappy, lousy officeholders. Maybe you should concede that means we have some integrity.

[Curious! This comment appeared - I checked in another browser - then disappeared. Let's try again.]

Senator is obviously a very, very important job. It's disturbing that the tea party fringe (extensive coverage: 24ahead.com/s/tea-parties ) were able to elect someone who doesn't appear qualified for the job and who probably won't win the general.

Now, since this is Althouse's site and since she has a few 'partier idiots who comment here, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There's a place for those who are outside the system to get involved in politics. Despite what the pea brains in the 'parties try to say, I'm not supporting a Harvardocracy. I'm just asking for qualifications, as good Americans should. The 'partiers don't care about qualifications.

2. I'm not in any way a True Conservative. See, I do things like oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty, one that Reid is going to try to ram through. Teaparty True Conservatives - the only people in the U.S. who are real patriots (or at least who have the tricorner hats) - ignore such anti-American bills because, well, Dick Armey is the one who ultimately cuts the checks and he supports illegal immigration.

Freeman Huntdoes anyone actually vote for a Senator based on sex education views? I'm trying to imagine what such a silly person would be like.

You are kidding, right? If a Senate candidate came out tomorrow and said they think sex ed should include free condoms for all high school kids I am pretty sure they would be toast.

In the case of O'Donnell when you start taking positions that are beyond mere abstinence you raise flags about beliefs that are not what we call mainstream. I think it is simply one thing about her among many that are just slightly out of touch.

Anyway, just look at her other issues:> She claimed to be a university graduate, “but it turns out she actually got her degree ... last week”; and she claimed to have won two counties against Senator Joe Biden in 2008 … even though “Delaware has only three counties and she lost the election by 65% to 35%.”

The thing about Obama is he will not veer to the center ever! Even in the 2012 campaign- because he thinks his left wing positions are what we want but we have just not had those positions explained to us.

So the Republicans will have room to veer to the center and beat Obama like a drum.

Senator is obviously a very, very important job, at least to grown-ups. It's disturbing that the tea party fringe (extensive coverage: 24ahead.com/s/tea-parties ) were able to elect someone who doesn't appear qualified for the job and who probably won't win the general.

Now, since this is Althouse's site and since she has a few 'partier dolts who comment here, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There's a place for those who are outside the system to get involved in politics. Despite what the pea brains in the 'parties try to say, I'm not supporting a Harvardocracy. I'm just asking for someone who's qualified, as good Americans should. The 'partiers don't care about qualifications.

2. I'm not in any way a True Conservative. See, I do things like oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty, one that Reid is going to try to ram through. Teaparty True Conservatives - the only people in the U.S. who are real patriots (or at least who have the tricorner hats) - ignore such anti-American bills because, well, Dick Armey is the one who ultimately cuts the checks and he supports illegal immigration.

Karl Rove [not a liberal by any stretch}> “There’s just a lot of nutty things she’s been saying that just simply don’t add up,” Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, said in a television interview on Fox. “I’m for the Republican, but I’ve got to tell you we were looking at 8 to 9 seats in the Senate we’re now looking at 7 to 8. In my opinion, this is not a race we’re going to be able to win.”

Perhaps if people didn't run around calling her a "sociopath" their criticism may have had more staying power.

Dropping a lawsuit and paying off college tuition late are hardly signs of sociopathy. Expecting to have a senate seat handed to you and refusing to deign to meet the opponent seem like better evidence to me.

And even if all the vitriol being thrown around had an effect on the election it likely doesn't fully account for the strength of her win. This looks like it was building for a while and O'Donnel was merely lucky to be the "not Castle".

I suppose I've had a weird upbringing because I'm entirely familiar with the arguments against masturbation. But then, I used to hang out with people who didn't believe in kissing before marriage (though they held hands.)

It's not an *odd* evangelical belief, though not widely held. It's a subject of discussion. If you neglect your spouse because you're taking care of yourself... that probably isn't good for your relationship.

No Matt- you said "if a candidate announced....". I said your Dems are gutless and implement their far left stuff almost in secret [i.e safe schools czar has several outrageous initiaives] but the Dem candidates are careful so that their own fingerprints are not on his radical progams.

Uucid...I said that the old GOP guys you named need to go teach the old theory about the last decade's politics while the real imperfect but willing fighters do what you say cannot be done. This year THERE ARE INDEPENDENT SWING VOTERS AND OBAMA DISILLUSIONED DEMS that can be won to win it all. The middle-class wants to hurt the old style, earmarking, sell out politicos, and they WILL find a way to beat them. Rove is blind to this wave election, but Palin can see that from her front porch.

Except that Reagan is the so-called conservative model even though he tripled the debt and doubled the deficit as a percentage of GDP at the same time he massively increased taxes on working folks via payroll taxes, and never even sent a balanced budget to Congress.

When Rs denounce (and stop promising to reinstate) the fiscal record of Reagan, then I'll sign up with them (again). But, they're full of it. The Ds are wolves, and the Rs are wolves in sheep's clothing, so I'm sticking w/ the Ds. At least WJC managed to run surpluses (even though I was a 100% certifiable Clinton hater at the time).

I grew up in an area that was moderate and people's sexual practices were pretty much their own business. I don't know, it just strikes me as odd to have the view she has. I also believe in the forbidden fruit side of things. As in if you tell teens something natural to humans like sex or kissing is bad it is the first thing they do.

Abstinence? Sure. It's a reasonable goal. And a health issue too. But beyond that I can't relate. Especially because masturbation is actually rather healthy [especially for guys] and much more preferable to teens having sex.

The "true conservatives" are going to find out in November that they've been eating their own, instead of removing deadwood. The victories of the far right are Pyrrhic, at best.

I guess you can call it "sending a message" to the public via Harry Reid who will be in office another six years thanks to the Tea Party, and Senate majority leader for at least another two years, thanks to the right-wingers picking an unelectable nutcase.

What could be better than a Republican who can win statewide elections in a Blue or even purple state? Anti-RINO lust gave California Grey Davis instead of former LA Mayor Reardon, and Barbara Boxer instead of Bill Jones. (Although the moderate, statewide-office-winning Jones -- author of the popular three-strikes legislation -- won the GOP nomination, he could raise only 40% as much as Boxer did.)

synova -- would open primaries seem better to you if they were open only to nonpartisan voters? I agree allowing voters to cross party lines leads to mischief if there is no real contest in their home party.

I believe that women don't understand that men, sometimes, just need to bust a load.

The temp becomes overwhelming and we just need to pull over to the side of the road and watch the cheerleaders cheering (for you breeders) and the soccer team practicing and just release what God has given us.

Sounds like the battle for control of the Republican Party has been joined.

It's about time. The country needs a clear choice. No way the RINOs would agree to disestablish D.C. in terms of all things domestic and leave it to the states, or better yet, the counties, to manage their own affairs and compete on competence and quality of life for citizens who will be voting not only at the ballot box but with their feet.

Competition. A demonstrated cure for all ills when given half a chance. A bad day for the market is better than a good day of the average government process, even without the pervasive corruption we've come to accept as a given.

O'Donnell is a deeply flawed candidate who is certainly less electable than Castle would have been. With that said, Castle is nothing more than a RINO who would be another squish similar to the musheads from Maine, utterly useless in any real attempt to push back against the damage done by Barry O and his merry gang of wreckers.

Perhaps O'Donnell will lose, and that loss may be the difference between GOP control of the Senate and Dem control. Those are two BIG 'ifs' (O'Donnell may win, but more to the point, the GOP grabbing the Senate is a REALLY long shot at best), but if the price of a Senate majority is more RINOs, the price is too high.

If the GOP is going to get the message that fiscal discipline is the key (and govern accordingly), then there will be other chances at the Senate, a solid basis for filibusters is all we really need as long as the House goes R, as seems likely. I would prefer GOP control in the Senate (though it would give Obama more excuses...), but it is a 'nice to have', not a must have.

Finally, O'Donnell (and Paladino in NY) is a wonderful message to send to the GOP establishment. The tidal wave we are seeing is NOT an endorsement of the old corrupt establishment machine...we want, we DEMAND something better. If the GOP can offer nothing better than Bennett, Castle, Murkowski, etc., we can find better on our own...

Condolences to everyone at the NYT. And liberals and RINOs everywhere. But it wasn't a total wipe out, you still have New York's #1 rent-control advocate, tax cheat Charlie Rangel - his landslide win a real inspiration coming into November. Assuming, of course, that Sarah 'Moose-Hunter' Palin doesn't bring up his name. I mean, can you believe that backwoods trollop!

"And much of that spending was to rebuild the military that Carter let languish. To win the Cold War. Which Reagan did."

Incorrect on both counts.

1. Carter, much as he justifiably deserves to be maligned on so many things, restarted the military buildup in 1978...That was why Reagan had such an easy time getting large DOD budgets from a Democrat Congress. It was a continuance of what Congress agreed had to be done following Soviet adventurism after Nixon's fall.

2. Reagan didn't win the Cold War. Reagan was one of many that were part of the Response to Communist expansion. Lee Yew was more influential in Asia, and Nixon and Eisenhower did more to set the stage for Soviet containment, then failure than Reagan. The biggest blow to the Soviets was the W German economic miracle spreading to other W European countries. The Communist "highwater" was in 67-68, then slow decay as the rest of the world looked and saw how dismal things were in Cuba, the Warsaw Pact and China compared to non-Communist nations.

Laying all credit on Saint Ronnie is just the stupid lazyman's wish to reduce all historical events of an era down to a single person.

Finally, O'Donnell (and Paladino in NY) is a wonderful message to send to the GOP establishment. The tidal wave we are seeing is NOT an endorsement of the old corrupt establishment machine...we want, we DEMAND something better. If the GOP can offer nothing better than Bennett, Castle, Murkowski, etc., we can find better on our own...

Continue to listen to Powell to Frum and to the David Brooks and you are going to be gone too.

C4: I guess you can call it "sending a message" to the public via Harry Reid who will be in office another six years thanks to the Tea Party, and Senate majority leader for at least another two years, thanks to the right-wingers picking an unelectable nutcase.

The government has gangrene. You have two choices: 1) amputate and risk the system shock, or 2) decay away in a filthy bed until you die.

We're not going to correct our course in one election anyway. But these Tea Party victories will create a sea-change, affecting congress-criters that once felt safe by being nothing more than the lesser of two evils.

We get the government we deserve. And some of us believe we deserve better.

Mike Castle was recruited to run to fill out the term of Joe Biden (who, under DE law, was allowed to run for re-election to his seat while also running for VP). It was thought Beau Biden would run to fill out the term. (DE law provided for an appointed interim fill-in until this year's election season; note, thus, that this seat will also be in contention four, not six, years hence.) Given how things in Delaware was playing out, it was thought that Castle, in a very blue state, would have the best chance to knock out a Democratic opponent, impart because he had managed to successfully win elections throughout the period in which Delaware was becoming blue (it wasn't always; and, btw, Castle was not exactly a flaming fiscal profligate in his two terms as governor, ahem).

I absolutely do not believe that Mike Castle sought this Senate term as the crowning glory of is political career. In fact, I'm FAR from convinced that he would have sought it at all, had he not been recruited to do at a particular time, under very particular circumstances, in a specific state with specific demographics, and with a very specific, somewhat unusual, political cultural history, at least at that time.

People ought to do at least at a little homework. Oughtn't they? Or is that too old fogey, as well?

Also recall that it was Carter who first went after the Soviets the one time (Afghanistan) we really pushed a military offensive against them. And, presumably you're familiar w/ Wilson's importance in that effort.

Too bad Reagan f-ed up the aftermath of that fight. Seems like he should have done something to clean up the Islam nuts that were skulking about. It would have also been wise for him to not have sent up the white flag of surrender (months after promising to never do so) to the Islam terrorists who killed hundreds of Americans in 83.

But, according to you all of that was either a) Congresses fault, or b) the right thing to do. Blind Reagan-worship is odd and dumb: it can only lead to poor decision making today.

Kirk: This does not make him a loon (especially in Delaware) or on some sort of vanity mission. No snark intended, but rather a serious question: How familiar are you with Delaware? Or any of the characters involved in this election and the run up to it?

Having been to exposed to Spectre's antics for years in Pa, I have had enough. You never knew if he was on your side or was willing to jump ship on any critical vote. The coup de grace was when he refused to campaign for Rick Santorum's re-election. This after Santorum went overboard to get Spectre re-elected.

To repeat: I would rather lose with O'DDonell than win with Castle. The Castle types have bankrupted the country (as willing accomplishes with the Dems). Enough is enough. I have had it.

One additional point, I have read my last WSJ article by Karl Rove. Rove is now a four letter word in my book. There was no excuse for his comments.

My list of winners and losers in the DE GOP primary, aside from Castle (loser) and O'Donnell (soon-to-be loser):

Winners

Barack Obama, Democrats: They receive the gift of a Senate seat.

Obamacare: If there is a GOP President in 2013, s/he will need 60 votes in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. Assuming no Dem crossovers, that means the GOP will need to gain a total of 19 Senate seats in 2010 and 2012, and now they are one seat farther away from that already very difficult goal.

RINOs: After O'Donnell goes down in flames in November, GOP primary voters will be more cautious about purging RINOs in the future, particularly in blue states.

Losers

Beau Biden: He must be kicking himself, no way he would have passed up a Senate run this year if he had known O'Donnell would be his opponent.

Sharon Angle: Securing DE means that Dems have now freed up money to spend against Angle in NV. Also, conservative donors will waste some money on O'Donnell, which otherwise might have gone to help Angle.

Tea Party Express: Their jump the shark moment. In a few weeks they will be taking the blame for costing the GOP a Senate seat, and possibly even control of the Senate.

Sarah Palin: Not only will she share the blame for the GOP losing this seat, but due to the similarities between her and O'Donnell, GOP primary voters may see O'Donnell's landslide defeat as a cautionary tale re: what might happen if they nominate Palin in 2012.

O'Donnell is clearly a wackadoodle, and she will immedicately begin to do great damage to the cause of the tea party, conservatism and libertatianism.

The question is not whether she has balls, but whether the tea party has its head up its ass.

She is a delusional paranoid, deeply and very obviously dishonest, doesn't pay her legitimate debts, lies about easily checked facts, and can't answer questions about how she has earned a living for the last 20 years.

She is the Republican equivalent of South Carolina's Alvin Greene for the Democrats.

The real tragedy is that Republicans were going to win Delaware until last night.

The tea Party Republicans just voted to elect a Democrat the Senator from Delaware.

And they have made it less likely that we will be able to repeal Obamacare.

The only real hope is that she will so implode that she will be forced to step aside. But that is not likely given her delusional and paranoid personality.

"The line it is drawnThe curse it is castThe slow one nowWill later be fastAs the present nowWill later be pastThe order isRapidly fadin'And the first one nowWill later be lastFor the times they are a-changin'."

From my perspective, Castle could just be just another Obamacare supporter- given the right Cornhusker Kickback or Louisiana Purchase.....just like his mentor Snarlin' Arlen (who was promised a chairmanship to switch).

You don't understand....I have had it with career pols. A 70 year old politician...when was the last time he has worked for a living?

Also recall that it was Carter who first went after the Soviets the one time (Afghanistan) we really pushed a military offensive against them. And, presumably you're familiar w/ Wilson's importance in that effort.

*snicker*

I'll take your disclaimer (Wilson) as evidence that even you know you are full of shit.

These Beltway Republicans who are wringing their hands because now, all of the sudden the Senate is no longer in play - Give me a break.

Do they somehow think they have the right to claim ownership of the fact that we're even talking about possibly gaining 10 seats?

Only a few months ago, everyone was abuzz because even Feingold's seat was at risk. For the record, Feingold has always been beatable. The establishment GOP has just always been putting up crummy opponents.Yesterday was the first time in a long time that I was able to vote for a candidate with any kind of enthusiasm.

Ron Johnson is a product of grass roots efforts to get a decent candidate for a change. If the establishment had had its way, almost 70-year old Tommy Thompson would have been the candidate. (Yes, he probably would have won, too. But he's more effective as a big fish in a little pond than vice versa)

These people who now lament the fact that we might not be able to repeal Obamacare - they're the ones whose so decisively lost the House and the Senate in the first place.

Politics is a game to them, our lives are a game to them.

So, the people who actually do things, who are productive, they stepped up to the plate. They're trying to bring us back from the brink. And they're doing a pretty good job.

But, the game players are stepping back in and saying we don't know what we're doing. We better listen to them.

Honestly, I don't know enough about O'Donnell to determine how she would be as a senator. But, I'm just glad that Castle lost because I'm sick of the game players.

While O'Donnell may be trailing her opponent in the polls right now, there are still several weeks until the general election. That's several weeks for her campaign to ask the people of Delaware, "Are you happy with how things are going in Washington? If so, then elect another Democrat Senator, and you'll get more of the same. If you're NOT happy with the entrenched politicians spending your grandchildren into penury, then elect me and I'll help put a stop to it." And that message, that Tea Party message, will appeal across party lines. It's time to put a stop to business as usual in Washington, and Mike Castle almost certainly wasn't the right candidate to do it. Christine O'Donnell might not be, either, but if I was a resident of Delaware who isn't happy with the way things are in our imperial capital, I might be willing to take a chance on her. She can't be any worse than the alternative of "more of the same."

The more I read about O'Donnell, the more I suspect that this is less a change within the Republican Party and more a change within the Tea Party movement. Apart from its grass-roots origins, the strength of the Tea Party movement was its focus on tax and deficit issues. Forces attempted to pull it in "distracting" directions (i.e. SoCon issues such as abortion or NeoCon directions)

O'Donnell seems to have shown up at the wrong party (more a cultural warrior than a budget hawk) but nevertheless has been welcomed. I'll be listening for dissenting voices from the Tea Partiers in the next few days.

And the big wigs are laughing up their sleeves, because it doesn't make a pint of piss who gets in. Big business and the war machine own congress. McDonnell, Angle, and just about anyone else will be sucked in, bought off, or passed by, if elected.